K. SHIVASHANKAR BHAT ( 1 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by riot giving him the grading of specialist even though he has passed Post-graduation (MS) in Surgery. Therefore, he seeks writ in the nature of mandamus to accord him the grading as a Surgeon and to grant him all consequential benefits such as Specialist Pay etc. The petitioner also seeks a direction that study leave be granted to him between 1993 to 1994 to pursue further studies. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner he was commissioned in Army as a. Lieutenant on 30. 3. 1979 and was promoted to the rank of a Captain on 8. 12. 1979. He completed medical Officer Junior Command Course 96 (May 1985 to September 1985) which according to him is the basis for selection to the Specialised Training Course. Petitioner completed this course and was recommended for advanced- specialised training in General Surgery and Radiology. The petitioner s first choice was General Surgery. On 6. 11. 1986 the petitioner was selected for advanced specialised training course for surgery at Army Hospital, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi. The petitioner obtained the Post Graduate Degree (MS) in October, 1989. According to the petitioner others who were selected for the course with him, who were sent to the Armed Forces Medical College, Pune completed their courses on 10. 12. 1988. After the petitioner obtained his Post Graduate Degree he applied for his grading in Surgery on 30. 12. 1989. On 31. 1. 1991 he was informed that the Medical Services Advisory Committee did not approve his grading since he had already completed 9 years service. This letter sent to the petitioner referred to a decision dated 17. 7. 1990. On 13. 3. 1991 the petitioner submitted a statutory complaint under Section 27 of the Army Act against his non-grading. There was no response. Hence the petitioner sent a reminder on 17. 1. 1992. Thereafter the petitioner sent 2 more reminders - one on 30. 8. 1992 and another on 13. 10. 1992. Still there was no response. Hence the present writ petition was filed on 3. 12. 1992. ( 3 ) AT this stage, it is necessary for me to note an interim order made by this court on 23. 3. 1993 directing the respondents to consider the statutory complaint, filed by the petitioner. 8. 1992 and another on 13. 10. 1992. Still there was no response. Hence the present writ petition was filed on 3. 12. 1992. ( 3 ) AT this stage, it is necessary for me to note an interim order made by this court on 23. 3. 1993 directing the respondents to consider the statutory complaint, filed by the petitioner. The respondent failed to consider the statutory complaint inspite of the direction, and they sought extension of time, which was granted subject to payment of costs of Rs. 3,500. 00 payable to the petitioner by the respondents. Ultimately the complaint was considered by an order dated 20. 7. 1993. By this order the petitioner was directed to be attached under another Specialist in Surgery for a period of 4-12 weeks for making appropriate recommendation on the grading of the petitioner. The order also stated that the Medical Advisory Grading Committee should review the petitioner s case for grading as a special case based on the Specialist s report and accord the petitioner the grading, if found suitable, from the date of the Specialist s report. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has filed objections to this order on the ground that he should not be directed to be attached to another Specialist now and that his grading should be done on the basis of the several assignments given to him and the remarks made in his favour by his superior officer under whom he was working since the said superior officer himself is competent to recommend the case for grading being a Senior Advisor. ( 5 ) THE petitioner s grievance starts from the date when he was not sent to the Armed Forces Medical College at Pune, instead he was sent to the Army Hospital, Delhi. According to the petitioner, if he had been sent to Pune, his grading would have been automatic based on the observations made at Pune, as in the case of other candidates who were sent to Pune for training under the very same order by which the petitioner was also selected for training. The order of selection for training selected 18 officers. The first 10 were sent to Pune. The petitioner was at Sl. No. 11. Persons at Sl. No. 11 to 13 were sent to Delhi Hospital. Subsequently the petitioner learnt that persons below them i. e. the officers at Sl. The order of selection for training selected 18 officers. The first 10 were sent to Pune. The petitioner was at Sl. No. 11. Persons at Sl. No. 11 to 13 were sent to Delhi Hospital. Subsequently the petitioner learnt that persons below them i. e. the officers at Sl. No. 16, 17 and 18 were sent to Pune though they were initially kept as reserved . The petitioner contends that he should have been sent to Pune instead of the said reserve candidates. The petitioner further contends that if grading is conferred to him now, nearly 18 years after his becoming Captain, he will not be considered for further higher grading because the further grading shall have to be dome within 4 years of the grading as a Specialist. ( 6 ) IN the communication sent to the petitioner dated 23. 1. 1991 (Annexure A) he was told that he was not approved to grading in Surgery because he was more than 9 years in service. No other reason was given. Petitioner questions this ground because the computation of 9 years shall have to be from the date he became a Captain on 8. 12. 1979. According to him in December 1987 he should have been graded. The petitioner also contended that several other officers who had more than 9 years of service were given the specialised grading. Petitioner repeatedly harped upon the fact that only if he had been sent to Pune instead of Delhi he would have completed the training a year earlier and thus would have become eligible for grading. ( 7 ) THE respondent pointed out that the communication sent to the petitioner on 23. 1. 1991 was not complete and the said communication itself referred to the decision dated 17. 7. 1990 and this decision is referred in letter No. 29348/iv. . . . . etc. The respondent pointed out that the petitioner was not recommended for grading by the concerned Consultant. It is also pointed out that petitioner failed to qualify and pass the M. S. (Surgery) in the first attempt and he passed the examination only in the second attempt. The respondent also pointed out that all officers who had their post-graduation are required to be ob- served by Senior Advisor/consultant for assessment of their fitness or otherwise, and they are graded if they are recommended by the Senior Advisor/ Consultant. The respondent also pointed out that all officers who had their post-graduation are required to be ob- served by Senior Advisor/consultant for assessment of their fitness or otherwise, and they are graded if they are recommended by the Senior Advisor/ Consultant. ( 8 ) THE petitioner also has made certain allegations that a few candidates were selected who should not have been selected and thus the selections to the post-graduation course were to oblige the named high ranking officers in the Army. But this allegation has no relevance to the present issue because the only question is whether the petitioner s non-gradation was properly done or not. ( 9 ) THE petitioner did not challenge at any time his selection to the course and detailing him for the studies at Delhi. He was sent to Delhi as early as July, 1987. Admittedly the petitioner was at Sl. No. 11 in the list of selected officers for training. At that time seats available at Pune were only 10 and therefore petitioner could not have been sent to Pune for training. Secondly, the petitioner has suppressed the fact that he passed his MS Course in the second attempt and prima facie this indicates that the petitioner was not an outstanding student at all. The writ petition proceeds on the assumption that the petitioner would have got his grading automatically if he had been sent to Pune. This is entirely speculative. At Delhi petitioner was studying under Brig. Sarkar, who was a Consultant and was fully competent to observe and recommend the case of a traince for grading. According to the petitioner, he should have been detailed for observation by another Consultant or or Advisor. For this the petitioner tries to rely upon some rule but he was not able to point out such a rule. ( 10 ) THE respondents point out that the trainees at Pune were observed and accorded grading on the basis of their performance at the training and there is no reason to apply a different procedure for those who were sent for training at Delhi. The respondents pointed out that Brig. S. K. Sarkar was the Head of Department of Surgery and the petitioner was working directly under him from July 1987 to October 1989 [the period during which the petitioner was undergoing training for MS (Surgery)]. Brig. The respondents pointed out that Brig. S. K. Sarkar was the Head of Department of Surgery and the petitioner was working directly under him from July 1987 to October 1989 [the period during which the petitioner was undergoing training for MS (Surgery)]. Brig. Sarkar seems to have opined that the petitioner was good in theory but not quite competent in practice. Therefore, he opined that he was not to be recommended for the grading as a Specialist. Petitioner relies upon several orders under which he was posted to give "specialist Coverage" to several VIPs in the course of his posting in the year 1991 and thereafter. The petitioner also relies on the fact that he was working under Col. P. Chaudhary, who is now a Brigadier and contends that Col. Chaudhary was a Senior Advisor in Surgery and his opinion should have been acted upon by relying upon the Confidential Reports written by Col. Chaudhary. ( 11 ) IF is not possible for this court to insist that the Army should apply a different procedure in the case of the petitioner while considering his case for grading. The grading has to be considered immediately on completion of the post-graduation and if at that time the candidate is not recommended he has to apply again for grading within one year. In the instant case petitioner no doubt sought grading but the Senior Consultant had not recommended the petitioner s case. It is not for this court to say whether the petitioner should have been sent for observation by any other Advisor or Consultant. In fact it is reasonable to hold that normally a candidate s grading should be on the basis of the recommendations of the officers under whom the candidates work during the course of their training. There may be exceptional cases where the opinion of any other Specialist or Consultant could be obtained. I do not think that detailing a candidate for observation by another Advisor or Consultant other than the one under whom a candidate studies, is a matter of rule or normal practice. ( 12 ) THE petitioner was not sent to Pune for the training due to fortuitous circumstances. Unfortunately he was at Sl. No. 11. Consequently he had to be sent to Delhi. ( 12 ) THE petitioner was not sent to Pune for the training due to fortuitous circumstances. Unfortunately he was at Sl. No. 11. Consequently he had to be sent to Delhi. Even otherwise it cannot be said that the petitioner would have been successful in getting the grading if he had been sent to Pune. It is not possible to conjecture the performance of the petitioner at Pune. Similarly, the fact that in the course of years the petitioner was sent for specialised coverage, is not a reason to hold that he should be graded as Specialist under the Rules. The fact that the petitioner had been sent on Specialist duty is not disputed. It is for the respondents to change the relevant rules to give recognition to the experienced officers by conferring the grading but as on today no rule has been brought to my notice to accord such a grading to the petitioner. In fact the petitioner himself has pointed out that further grading has to be obtained within 4 years from the date of grading as a Specialist. The said further grading is not permitted under the Rules if the officer concerned exceeds the limit of the service period. This itself indicates that mere experience in service is not a ground to confer the grading. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out whether the petitioner is graded or not graded his chances of promotion are not taken away. Failure to obtain the grading would result in denial of certain special pay and nothing more. ( 13 ) THE respondents also have pointed out that those who were below the petitioner in the order selecting candidates for training were sent to Pune because the available seats were increased and according to the respondents the petitioner was not willing to change from Delhi to Pune at that time. It is unnecessary for me to go into this question as this involves investigation into disputed factual position. The petitioner contends that he was never offered the chance of joining Pune. I have already found that this argument based on denial of admission for training at Pune to the petitioner as the root cause for the petitioner s present predicament is entirely speculative, in the context of the admitted fact that even at Delhi the petitioner obtained his MS Degree having failed once. Further Brig. I have already found that this argument based on denial of admission for training at Pune to the petitioner as the root cause for the petitioner s present predicament is entirely speculative, in the context of the admitted fact that even at Delhi the petitioner obtained his MS Degree having failed once. Further Brig. Sarkar has made his own assessment which cannot be rejected as irrelevant. ( 14 ) BEFORE closing the case I am constrained to note that the respondents did not act promptly as they should have in considering the complaints of the petitioner. It is unfortunate that the petitioner had to approach this court after reminding the respondents repeatedly about his complaints. Even after the petitioner approached this court the respondents took their own time to respect the interim order made by this court. In such a situation the serving personnel like the petitioner is likely to become suspicious of the approach and the attitude that are likely to be adopted by the respondents while considering the case of the aggrieved personnel. It is hoped that the respondents would take note of this observation to make appropriate rectification. ( 15 ) THE writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.